SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the therapeutic efficacy of endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal lesions. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of science, Cochrane Library and Embase databases until October 1, 2025, supplemented by manual reference screening, identified studies comparing EFTR and ESD. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, with methodological quality assessed using standardized tools. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4, calculating pooled odds ratios (OR) and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Five studies involving 570 patients were analyzed. EFTR and ESD showed comparable en bloc resection rates (OR = 2.59, 95%CI 0.38 ∼ 17.77, P = 0.33) and R0 resection rates (OR = 1.73, 95%CI 0.71 ∼ 4.20, P = 0.23). EFTR demonstrated superior safety profiles with significantly lower postoperative perforation risk (OR = 0.13, 95%CI 0.05 ∼ 0.37, P < 0.001), reduced post-polypectomy syndrome incidence (OR = 0.23, 95%CI 0.08 ∼ 0.68, P = 0.008), and shorter procedure time (SMD=-1.97, 95%CI -2.95 ∼ -0.99, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in postoperative bleeding (OR = 0.96, 95%CI 0.31 ∼ 2.94, P = 0.94) or lesion recurrence rates (OR = 2.47, 95%CI 0.76 ∼ 8.01, P = 0.13). Conclusions: In summary, EFTR yields favorable short-term outcomes for selected small or refractory colorectal lesions, particularly non-lifting or recurrent lesions, whereas ESD remains essential for larger superficial colorectal neoplasia requiring en bloc resection. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42024534672.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.